How much military spending?

[JimC]

The period Britain began to become 'great' was a period in which minimal war was fought by the Brits. The kick off to Britain's industrial revolution (and it did start in Britain) was James Watt who designed the world's first truly practical steam engine. He got his start by 'prenticing to Dr. Black who researched the basic laws of heat and heat transfer, and the physics of water turning to steam. Neither had anything to with war, and their development work was entirely civilian.

I suspect that the idea that war stimulates scientific growth is rather exaggerated. After all, the Dark Ages were characterised by almost continuous war, and nothin' happened in terms of science and technology.

The period of history in which science and technology grew at its greatest rate is the last 70 odd years, which is also known as the Long Peace, in which wars continued, but they were mostly small wars, and most of humanity was unaffected by them.

During that time, Great Britain was involved in a very intense naval arms race with France and later Germany. Much of the stimulus for advances in steam technology and metallurgy came from that, as well as the building of a merchant marine to service the empire.

[piscator]

It's obviously better not to have bombs and bullets destroying your lab while you're trying to answer an important question, but is correlation causation?


Is OP trying to come up with another good reason why war is bad? Aren't there enough of those already ignored any time someone can get enough kids together for a nice dustup?

[pErvinalia]

The period Britain began to become 'great' was a period in which minimal war was fought by the Brits. The kick off to Britain's industrial revolution (and it did start in Britain) was James Watt who designed the world's first truly practical steam engine. He got his start by 'prenticing to Dr. Black who researched the basic laws of heat and heat transfer, and the physics of water turning to steam. Neither had anything to with war, and their development work was entirely civilian.

I suspect that the idea that war stimulates scientific growth is rather exaggerated. After all, the Dark Ages were characterised by almost continuous war, and nothin' happened in terms of science and technology.

The period of history in which science and technology grew at its greatest rate is the last 70 odd years, which is also known as the Long Peace, in which wars continued, but they were mostly small wars, and most of humanity was unaffected by them.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but I've never seen you change your mind once it's made up. So I won't be attempting to change it.

[Hermit]

The period Britain began to become 'great' was a period in which minimal war was fought by the Brits.

You have got to be fucking kidding, mate. Do you live in a fact-exclusion zone? List of wars Britain was involve in

[Blind groper]

To Hermit

Reminds you of the USA, doesn't it?
However, I may have been a little inexact, and I say sorry for that. I meant serious wars. By serious, I mean those that cost a lot of money.

I do not believe that there is any correlation that can be shown between times of war and accelerated progress in science and technology. I am open to being contradicted on this, but you will need to supply evidence.

The only real progress accelerated by wars is in weapons of war. Better guns, ammunition, controlling systems etc. But not basic science.

Even the NASA actions in the cold war really did not represent progress. They pushed the technology of the time, but gained nothing long term. After many decades, NASA is trying once more to do what it did in the 1970's. No real progress as a result of the cold war.

[laklak]

Yeah, no difference in a V2 and Saturn 5, just a matter of degree. Had nothing to do with Sputnik, either, and fuck that Gagarin dude. Hell, we got a monkey to do the same thing.

[Hermit]

I may have been a little inexact, and I say sorry for that. I meant serious wars. By serious, I mean those that cost a lot of money.

A little inexact? Glad to hear that the Crimean War was so cheap. Or the Boer wars. Or the Opium Wars. Or the Maori Wars. Or the sea battles with the French navy. Or the Napoleonic Wars. Or the war against the rebels of its 13 American colonies. You do realise that the industrial revolution started in the mid 1700s, don't you?

The only reason any wars are relatively cheap is that the opposition was so weak. Had the Nepean and Hawkesbury Wars encountered a more powerful and effective enemy, the British forces and the cost of them would have increased proportionally.

[klr]

I may have been a little inexact, and I say sorry for that. I meant serious wars. By serious, I mean those that cost a lot of money.

A little inexact? Glad to hear that the Crimean War was so cheap. Or the Boer wars. Or the Opium Wars. Or the Maori Wars. Or the sea battles with the French navy. Or the Napoleonic Wars. Or the war against the rebels of its 13 American colonies. You do realise that the industrial revolution started in the mid 1700s, don't you?

The only reason any wars are relatively cheap is that the opposition was so weak. Had the Nepean and Hawkesbury Wars encountered a more powerful and effective enemy, the British forces and the cost of them would have increased proportionally.

They also employed a lot of locals to do the fighting - as colonial powers usually do.

[Hermit]

They also pioneered sub-contracting. The East India Company had top of the line battleships, troops and did a sterling job administrating India on Britain's behalf for just over a century.

[Clinton Huxley]

If we didn't have nukes, the Crapauds would obliterate London with as little thought as buggering a whore, surrendering to the Boche or sucking the giblets from a live sparrow. Peace through superior firepower.

[Blind groper]

Between the time Britain managed to avoid the 30 years war, and the Napoleonic War, it was involved only in small and relatively inexpensive conflicts. Take the American war for example. It was a period when Britain was looking at possible conflict with no fewer than 4 European nations, and kept the vast bulk of its armed forces at home, so the American war cost very little. If the Brits had unleashed their full force, the American rebels would have been drowned by the force of it.

The Industrial Revoluton was pretty much a done deed by the time of the more serious Napoleonic Wars, and indeed supported Britain in its battle.

The Dark Ages were almost continuous and damaging warfare. Raids by strong pirate forces like the Vikings were causing terrible harm, even when nation on nation wars were less potent. In this warlike time, no progress was made in science and technology. Indeed, much knowledge was lost. On the other hand, the most progress was made over the past 70 years. The years historians call "The Long Peace".

I am afraid that you guys who believe wars stimulate progress have not made much of a case. My points are more potent. Peace aids progress, not war.

Think of the major scientific progress in our own lifetime - a time of relative peace. How much of the wonderful scientific breakthroughs have been military related? How many Nobel Prize winners were working for the military?

[laklak]

You act like the Middle Ages were a period of stagnation, nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, there were societal issues stemming from the fall of the Roman Empire, but the idea that for a thousand years after we were grubbing in the dirt with sticks is utter twaddle. Western Europe wasn't the only place on the planet, you know.

The middle ages saw enormous advances in architecture, mathematics and astronomy in the Caliphate, for example. The Chinese didn't even notice the dirt-grubbing European barbarians, nor did the Japanese, or for that matter the rest of Asia.

In European military history the Middle Ages saw a complete revision of tactics, including the development of sophisticated and complex fortifications, and the use of artillery and eventually musketry.

The European Middle Ages saw the rise of mercantilism, the development of insurance and modern banking, and enormous advances in agricultural science.

The whole idea of the "Dark Ages", other than as a descriptor of Germanic tribal migrations from about 400-800 CE has been virtually abandoned by modern historians.

[Blind groper]

Laklak

The old Chinese society, and the European Dark Ages both were pretty much stagnated. Not 100% of course. But progress was minimal.

Ironically, it was probably Marco Polo and the ideas he brought back from China that kicked Europe into gear. Especially Chinese printing, which led, some time later, to moveable type and Guttenburg's new systems. Also Chinese gunpowder, which Europe developed into new and more destructive uses.

But before Polo, and later, Guttenburg, progress in Europe was painfully slow, in spite of a plethora of very damaging wars. The old Romans had some fairly sophisticated techniques, including concrete, which were lost in the times to come. For about 1,000 years, European society made so little progress that it is debatable whether their gains or losses were greater.

[Hermit]

Where is Guttenburg? Not even Google Maps thinks it exists on earth. Would it be on the same planet you come from?

[pErvinalia]

Wasn't he the dude who started facebook??